Testy politics.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Politics, even in these mild political climes, is not an undertaking for the timid. This is being proved once again this primary election season in the race for governor, in which negative ads are dominating the airwaves.

Campaigns are supposed to be about differences and comparisons. And free speech protections are essential, especially in the rough and tumble world of politics. There is nothing illegal about slamming an opposing candidate in a TV or radio ad, or in a campaign mailer - unless, of course, the comments cross the line into libel or slander.

Fortunately, there's been no libel or slander in the governor's race. But voters do need to exercise caution in weighing the attack ads that are flying around the state.

Democrat Bev Stein launched the wave of attack ads by running commercials criticizing her two major primary opponents, Jim Hill and Ted Kulongoski, for their past records on health care. On the Republican side, Jack Roberts unloaded a campaign mailer lambasting his two major GOP opponents, Kevin Mannix and Ron Saxton, for their past records on taxes and spending.

While neither Stein's nor Roberts' campaign tactics are surprising, they are disappointing. They don't tell the whole truth; attack ads usually don't. Stein criticized Hill for voting against the Oregon Health Plan when he was a state senator. He did, but only because he was pushing for a broader bill at the time. Roberts' mailing criticizes both Saxton and Mannix - Saxton for what Roberts claims was an attempt to eliminate the income tax "kicker" refund and Mannix for voting as a legislator for higher taxes. In fact, as a Portland School Board member, Saxton urged taxpayers to contribute their kicker money to the Portland School Foundation, a nonprofit organization designed to financially help Portland schools. And Mannix's tax votes in the Legislature were cast when he was a Democrat and before he switched parties.

Attack ads usually appear when a race is so close that an attack ad might tip the balance, or when the perpetrator is desperate. The governor's race in both parties is tight, and those running the negative ads apparently figure that they can sway that 10 percent to 15 percent of the electorate that relies mostly on advertising for campaign "news."

The flip side is that the candidate on the receiving end of an attack ad can choose to respond to or ignore the ad. Saxton responded to Roberts' ad with his own attack ad implying that Roberts supports higher gasoline taxes. Hill responded to Stein's hit by calling a news conference to criticize the ad against him, but so far hasn't retaliated with his own ad. Kulongoski and Mannix have more or less stayed quiet about the ads against them. Which tactic works best - to respond or to stay above the fray - will be made clearer on election night.

In any event, the race for governor should be about current issues facing the state and how each candidate will address those issues. It shouldn't be about which candidate has the sharpest rapier.